The Essence of Lone Nutter Cluelessness -- David Pein
RICLAND
>>>> "Look, bird brain, you don't throw testimony out because other
testimony contradicts it." <<<
>
> Therefore, via this lovely "Never Throw Out Testimony" declaration
> (which equates to: ALL testimony MUST be equal in Ric's world,
> evidently), we could never solve any murder case that includes wildly-
> varying testimony and discrepancies in the evidential record.
>
> Right?
Amazing! And you're not faking, are you, David? You really don't know
how clueless your question is.
Throwing out evidence is like throwing out small pieces of a puzzle
after all the big pieces fit -- forty-five years later the puzzle
remains unsolved.
>
> So we're destined to remain stuck in neutral FOREVER, due to the fact
> I am being FORCED to accept Audrey Bell's testimony re. the Connally
> bullet fragments (and her testimony about JFK's neck wound being a
> wound of entrance too, don't forget...you didn't mention that earlier;
> probably because you didn't know about it)...and I'm forced to also
> accept Dr. Gregory's "postage stamp" size fragment testimony right
> alongside Bell's words.
You're forced to say you haven't solved the case until you tie-up all
the lose ends, which you clearly haven't done. In fact, Mark Lane called
your kind of justice exactly what it is 45 years ago: "A Rush to
Judgment." The movie/book "The Ox Bow Incident" also describes your kind
of justice. That's the story of how they lynch an innocent guy based on
partial evidence.
You do the same thing to Oswald and now you've finally admitted it.
Thanks.
>
> So...where do we go from here? Do we twiddle our thumbs and let the
> case grow weeds under our feet as we accept BOTH versions as the truth
> (somehow)?
Readers, are you taking all of this down? David is finally admitting all
the pieces of the puzzle don't fit.
>
> Or: Should we use these testimonies and weigh them and balance them
> against the SUM TOTAL of evidence in the whole case to determine which
> person has the most credible testimony?
You may do that if you wish (and you have), but to do so is to ignore
what scientists call the "scientific method."
Have you ever heard of the scientific method, David?
>
> The latter, of course, should be done....with Gregory winning that
> particular battle for the reasons already given. Gregory removed the
> fragments himself and saw the Governor's X-rays, and testified in
> detail in front of the WC under oath. Bell did not.
Jeesus ...
And here I'll stop, David. Why continue when it's apparent you have no
idea the fool you're making out of yourself.
ricland
--
Ricland:
"In other words, David, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply
tossing it out."
David Van Pein:
In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
David Von Pein
When did I ever say that every last piece of the JFK case (puzzle)
"fit" absolutely perfectly?
Obviously some discrepancies are going to pop up in a case like this
one, with hundreds of witnesses who each have two unique eyeballs
(orbs) in their heads.
But, per Ric, we HAVE to attach the same amount of weight to ALL of
these discrepancies. How we'll ever solve the case this way is
anyone's guess.
>>> "...What scientists call the "scientific method"." <<<
Do scientists ignore common sense and logic when utilizing their
"scientific method"?
>>> "Have you ever heard of the scientific method, David?" <<<
Ever hear of common sense, Ric-Kook?
>>> "And here I'll stop, David." <<<
Thanks. I need to stop and go buy some more TUMS anyway.
I'm charging them to YOUR Visa card, btw, since you're the reason I
need so many.
RICLAND
>>>> "David is finally admitting all the pieces of the puzzle don't fit." <<<
>
> When did I ever say that every last piece of the JFK case (puzzle)
> "fit" absolutely perfectly?
>
> Obviously some discrepancies are going to pop up in a case like this
> one, with hundreds of witnesses who each have two unique eyeballs
> (orbs) in their heads.
>
> But, per Ric, we HAVE to attach the same amount of weight to ALL of
> these discrepancies. How we'll ever solve the case this way is
> anyone's guess.
If we start with the Mannlicher Carcano itself, we're first beset with
the question of whether Oswald actually owned it. Then there's the
question of it not being able to fit in the bag he brought to work. Then
the two officers who thought the weapon they found was a "Mauser." Then
the officer who later said the weapon had "Mauser" inscribed on the
barrel. Then the useless scope. Then the fact that FBI Olympic class
marksmen could not duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting. Then the
testimony that more than three shots were fired. Then the 40-odd people
who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. Then the witnesses who
saw men behind the picket fence. Then Connally's "delayed reaction" to
the first bullet to hit JFK. Then the Zapruda film showing JFK reeling
backwards from the last shot. Then Connally's testimony that he's
convinced the bullet that hit him was different from the bullet that hit
JFK. Then Officer Baker and Trully finding Oswald in the cafeteria
sipping a Coke less than 90 seconds after the shooting ...
And here I'll stop but as you know I could have continued with at least
100 other evidence discrepancies, discrepancies that in each case you --
"assign a weight to each one."
No.
Discrepancies are a red light not a green light. Discrepancies mean you
stop, not go forward.
cdddraftsman
he refuses to admit that when you use weak evidence you
invite disaster as far as finding the best answer . He's
yet to figure out that not all evidence is created equal .
Yes you can include all the pieces of evidence , but why
would you when past experience has shown that many of
the pieces of the puzzle have been maliciously thrown
into the pile from another unrelated puzzle .
Even worse Ricland has taken a whole big handful ,
while he thought no one was looking and shoved the
pieces into his pocket .......Naughty Boy Ricland ,
we saw that ! ................heheheh ! ............tl
PS : Put them back on the table and play straight
or we'll put you thru the wood chipper and feed
you to Rossley !
Rossley's ' Stupid Pills ' :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2zfu5px
cdddraftsman
If these kids can figure it out so can you Ricland ! ........tl
> > need so many.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
minded world of
Ricland ON:
"You're forced to say you haven't solved the case until you
tie-up all the lose ends, which you clearly haven't done."
Ric out of all the astonishingly simple
minded cHucKLe๏heaD posts youโve made, this
stinker above takes the prize..
If you're looking at trying to resolve
11-22-63 with a filmed confession from Oswald
complete with all the details like how
eyewitness accounts of the bag ranged from 27"
all the way up to 3 feet, ("How could
eyewitness accounts differ that much" thinks
Ric..) then you're going to be frustrated son..
Without hurting your fragile feelers you have
no business whatsoever being involved in logical
or subjective analysis at any level even if it's
just whether or not your lawn mowers did a good
job yesterday.
Now if your total check out at the hardware
store today comes to $18.47 and you give the clerk
a $20 bill you can calculate that you have $1.53
in change coming.. This is B&W and this you can do..
But if you get off on a tangent trying to determine
if the $1 bill you just got in change might be a
counterfeit bill.. Well, your stone dead on this
type of analysis Ric.. Some guy says to you, "Who
in hell would print up a counterfeit $1 bill?"
Then you counter with, "Are you saying it's
impossible?".. And off we go into the la-la land of
Ricland where Beverley Oliver is offered as a โGK
shooter witnessโ and 18 observers actually saw with
their own eyes that the neck wound was really an
โentry wound.โ
If this common sense thought process goes over your
head Ric (not unlikely btw..) then see if you can
get your arms around this one: Your JFK site is
very professional and certainly implies that it may
be a worthy venue in which to expand JFK ideas,
theories.. But for a FACT: It quickly came unraveled
and went straight in the crapper because inside this
authoritative faรงade awaits a brutally stubborn Ring
Master with little or no ability to process or apply
common sense. (This is why your JFK site failed so
promptly and decisively in record time Ric..)
You may go now Ric..
Youโve had yet another really shitty day.
MR >:~{ ED
Ed Cage 0648Apr2907
Day Two of NFL Draft today..
RICLAND
Seriously, Ed, if Seinfeld is brought back you should try to get a job
as one of the writers. And it's not because you write comedy (although
your posts are a joke) but because there's no one I know of who writes
about nothing as well as you do.
Your War and Peace length thesis directly above is a response to my lead
article. Yet you say nothing about the points I make at all. Worse
still, you hearken back to a post I made months ago, as if doing so has
relevance to what's being discussed today.
You many want to read my thread on lone nutter obsessive compulsive
behaviors.
It's helped others.
aeffects
these problem go right over the Lone Nutters head, collectively. The
one exception would be Bugliosi, he should know better. If your points
above and others aren't addressed in the upcoming book (not to mention
Ben Holmes's 35 questions), Bugliosi's book will labelled;
**FARCE**... further, for Nutters on this USNET board, it would be a
**crushing** DEFEAT in questioning the WCR/evidence as their not-so-
able handlers put-forth...
Excellent points....
eca...@tx.rr.com
Try to think *substance* Ric.. Surely you
understand that.. Let's see:
Since you insist on lingering around here*
even after the hints for you to go forever
have been abundant, perhaps you will share
with us your conspiracy theory. Please
present the evidence *pattern* supporting
your conspiracy theory and see if you can
bundle up all loose ends as you require from
others. Here's my evidence *pattern* so
you'll know what you have to shoot for..
But the biggest tip-off that you are clueless
Ric is your primary use of QUESTIONS in
lieu of evidence in a pedestrian effort to mask
your lack of knowledge and research.
****************************
I have an evidence *pattern*
You don't.
And that's the DIFFERENCE.
****************************
Here's mine:
35 REASONS OSWALD DID IT by Ed Cage
For the many new researchers who would like to see
evidence from both sides, here are at least 31 reasons why
some of us feel Oswald did it:
IMPORTANT
Even the infamous "Ruby photo" would not convict by itself
without supporting evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are
unaware of btw..)
Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators do.
If one *isolates* each point and determines that this alone
will not convict, they will be correct. But if the entire
picture these 31 pieces of evidence present in it's entirety
is considered, the preponderance of the overall picture is
quite persuasive:
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 loud shots near them.
3) Reports of 5th floor ceiling debris falling in the hair.
4) Also reported from the 5th floor was the
possible sound of spent shells hitting above.
5) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald
or shooter is seen on 6th floor with weapon.
5) Oswald prints on MC.
6) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
7) Oswald prints on SN box.
8) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
9) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
10) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
11)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
12)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
13)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering without
paying.
14)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
15)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police
Officer JD Tippit.
16)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
17)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he
took pistol to TT.
18)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
19)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work with him on
11-22-63AM.
20)Both Frazier & Randall confirm seeing Oswald with a long
bulky bwn bag on 11-22-63 morning.
21)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained
curtain rods.*
22)Curtain rods never found.*
23)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he had
"curtain rods" in long bwn bag.*
24)Oswald denies both Frazier's long bwn paper bag account,
as well as his "curtain rod" story.*
25)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper
bag.*
25a) No explanation of who (other than Oswald) could
or WOULD
have taken his rifle from the Paine garage.
26) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
27)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence
clearly establishes (proof) the shots came from behind.
28)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one
not present at TSBD role-call.
29)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus,
departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed
to drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his boarding house. (No
accomplices to Oswald TSBD departure.)
30)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, and pulls a
revolver.
31)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
32)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire
series) of BY photo(s) - (Another lie.)
33) Marinaโs account of the blanket, rifle, etc., casts
Oswald in an even more incriminating light.
34)Oswald had the *opportunity* He was seen on the 6F
earlier that day.
35)Oswald had the *motive* Oswald was pro-Cuba.
He perceived Kennedy to be anti-Cuba.
Hopefully new researchers will consider the
evidence **pattern** when trying to reach
your own personal conclusions and insert a
large grain of salt when these airheads like
QUESTION MAN Healy? and Ricland come
around offering only "There's Something Fishy
Here" after the 4 decades this crime has been
thouroughly researched. .
And Ricland, please
spare us the cHucKLe:-)heaD wise-cracks this
time.. Just present your very best conspiracy
theory with all "loose ends completely
addressed and resolved if you don't mind.
RICLAND: "You're forced to say you haven't
solved the JFK (conspiracy) until you tie-up
all the loose ends, which you clearly haven't
done."
Sound like a familiar request Ric?
Put it right
here====>___________
Make it your very best CT if you don't mind.
(Be sure not to leave any loose ends either if you don't mind..)
MR ;~D
1052Apr2907
* You have been asked to go and even pledged
you would go.. Your repeated reappearance(s)
only serve to remind everyone your JFK site
really
*B*O*M*B*E*D*
in record time.
On Apr 29, 8:20ย am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> Try to think *substance* Ric.. Surely you
> understand that.. Let's see:
>
give Fast Eddie Cage a few more posts in this thread he'll be
addressing his own points. These *Nutter* fools continue to use thread
tactics utilized 10-15 years ago on THIS board.
None of them, NONE have written anything original in 7 years.... Is it
any wonder they're pinning their hopes on daBugliosi. Hey, he's IT!
It's all they've got.
eca...@tx.rr.com
are one of the few I can say that about..
Honest.
Your feeble attempt to zap DVP by saying
he has no idea what a fool he is making
of himself doesn't even fool raw newcomers
or cHucKLe:-)heaDs like QUESTION MAN Healy?
and Sak.O.Nutz
Then you open with,
RIC ON:-------
"If we start with the Mannlicher Carcano itself, we're
first beset with the question of whether Oswald
actually owned it."
RIC OFF-------
And I ask myself, ..Why me God?
Ric your profound lack of knowledge combined
with a virtual absence of common sense and
*objectivity* is unparalleled -- Even squeak
toys like QUESTION MAN Healy? and Sak.O.Nutz
don't make comments that shallow.
Ric I'll wager you don't even know what frame
Kennedy's head shot occurred at..
MR ;~D
1132Apr2907
On Apr 29, 8:20ย am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
RICLAND
> ****************************
> Here's mine:
> 35 REASONS OSWALD DID IT by Ed Cage
> 1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
-----> snip! <-----
Earth calling Ed Cage ... Earth calling Ed Cage ... Earth call...
I don't know what cave you've been living in for the last 45 years, Ed,
but each item in your list has been challenged and throughly rebutted.
Legions of books have addressed each one and in each case the item had
little or no foundation.
The three spent cartridges is a good starting point. It would have taken
Oswald less than a second to scoop them up. Instead he leaves them there
and goes to the cafeteria to have a Coke. He also supposedly leaves his
rifle there with his prints on it instead of putting it back in the bag
and going downstairs.
And this doesn't ring any bells with you, it doesn't scream out, "frame
job!"
And as to the fingerprints they're a myth. His prints were not found on
the rifle, provide the cite if you challenge this.
In another post I introduced David Pein to an idea called "the
Scientific Method." The way the scientific method works is that after a
scientist makes a claim this claim is "peer-reviewed." The part of the
puzzle you miss, Ed, is that you can't grasp the notion that your 33
evidence points have been peer-reviewed and found wonting. Virtually no
one in academia thinks them valid and over seventy-five percent of the
population reject them out of hand.
Peer review is good, Ed. Peer review gave us a cure for small pox,
yellow fever, and many other deadly diseases. But, you, and other lone
nutters, uniformly reject any criticism of your interpretation of the
evidence. When, for example, we point out to you that it was impossible
for Oswald to get from the boarding house to the Tippit crime scene in
the required time, you don't even bother to dispute this, you simply
ignore it.
The same is true for each item on your list. You're aware of the
challenges qualified experts have made regarding each, but even at this
late date, you present your list as if you're blissfully unaware of the
debate surrounding each item on it.
Which is the reason I'm now convinced the debate is not really about the
evidence, but about the bunker mentality people like you and David have
turned into an art form.
Your talk of evidence is a facade meant to cloak your unwillingness to
listen to what the world is saying. Your lone gunman theory evidence of
kind of anti-social bull-headiness, not an open and objective mind.
Lone
35 bullshit points.
Ed Cage:another poor brainwashed CIA victim. No danger for the
government.
Case closed.
Go fishing Ed.
eca...@tx.rr.com
Sorry wrong again (3x this time) Ric.
* Oz left the 3 cartridges on the floor because he was in a hurry.
* Oz wiped most all of his prints off his MC except for the print
under the stock and a partial on/near the trigger which he missed. the
bag and SN boxes also had Oz's prints on them.
* Sounds like you have NO CITATION * to back up your bizarre "No
fingerprints from Oz found on the rifle" claim.
None of my/our 35 points have ever been
effectively rebutted by anyone Ric.
That's 10% of your problem Ric.. No homework,
NO CITATIONS (Except for Mark Lane - har-har),
very little knowledge and no *objectivity* are the
other 90% at least in my view.
****************************
I have an evidence *pattern*
You don't.
And that's the DIFFERENCE.
****************************
* No we're tired on doing your homework for you Ric..
Did I mention " L - A - Z - Y ?" That's another biggie
problem for you son..
And I keep asking myself, ..Why me God?
Ric your profound lack of knowledge combined
with a virtual absence of common sense and
*objectivity* is unparalleled -- Even squeak
toys like QUESTION MAN Healy? and Sak.O.Nutz
don't make comments that shallow.
Ric I'll wager you don't even know what frame
Kennedy's head shot occurred at.. <===================
MR ;~D
1248Apr2907
On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
RICLAND
>
>
> Sorry wrong again (3x this time) Ric.
>
> * Oz left the 3 cartridges on the floor because he was in a hurry.
To get a Coke?
If he was in a hurry he'd have got the hell out of the building --
wouldn't you have?
Why'd he stop for a Coke, Ed?
Thirsty ...?
>
> * Oz wiped most all of his prints off his MC except for the print
> under the stock and a partial on/near the trigger which he missed. the
> bag and SN boxes also had Oz's prints on them.
I thought you said he was in a hurry. Make up your mind. And we're
talking 90 seconds here, right? So how does he wipe the prints off, hide
the rifle and get to the cafetaria in 90 seconds -- without being seen
on the way down by the women coming up?
Hmmm...
Maybe he was there all the time, ever consider that, Ed?
And here's a good one: maybe someone planted the rifle to implicate him.
Ever consider that, Ed?
Why not?
>
> * Sounds like you have NO CITATION * to back up your bizarre "No
> fingerprints from Oz found on the rifle" claim.
There weren't any. You made the claim. Support it.
>
> None of my/our 35 points have ever been
> effectively rebutted by anyone Ric.
Indeed they have, Ed, and by people far more qualified than you.
And what's your qualifications anyway? Are you a lawyer? Forensic
technician? Are you published?
Would you like a bibliography of people who are published -- all better
qualified than you -- who've rebutted your 35 points?
Granted, they all could be wrong, but wouldn't you say everything being
equal and unless you're an expert in their field of knowledge,chances
are they're opinion is at least as well-informed as yours?
>
> That's 10% of your problem Ric.. No homework,
> NO CITATIONS (Except for Mark Lane - har-har),
> very little knowledge and no *objectivity* are the
> other 90% at least in my view.
So your point is no citations exist? That none of your 35 points have
been challenged?
Is that your point, Ed?
>
> ****************************
> I have an evidence *pattern*
> You don't.
> And that's the DIFFERENCE.
> ****************************
Fine, then let's go through your 35 points one by one, shall we?
Two police offices first described the weapon they found as a Mauser.
One of these officers said "Mauser" was written on the gun barrel.
That rebuts your point #6, right, Ed?
RICLAND
I pointed out to Ed the notion of "peer-review" but I might as well have
been talking to a rock. His thesis remains that no one but lone nutters
"do their homework," that anyone who disagrees with his lone gunman
theory is uninformed.
Pure ignorance. Obviously, thousands of better informed people than he
reject the lone gunman theory, but it doesn't matter. He continues to
hum his mantra: "They haven't done their homework!"
eca...@tx.rr.com
"And here's a good one: maybe someone planted the
rifle to implicate him. Ever consider that, Ed?
Why not?"
Ric the words "planted" and "liar" have been the
Battle-cry for CTers for over 4 decades.. You'd
know that if you'd ever do any homework.. Why do
we have to constantly enlighten you as you
continue to embarrass yourself with a profound
level of incompetence, laziness, and virtually
no sign of basic common sense?
Earth to Ricland the lame 2nd grader ideas that
someone ( gULp ) *planted* Oz's own rifle,
stole it from his blanket in Paine's garage,
*planted* blanket fibers,
*planted* Oz fingerprints under the stock and by
the trigger,
*planted* the pistol that killed JD Tippit,
*planted* Oz's prints on the 6FSN boxes,
*planted* Oz's palm print on the bag which
Randle originally estimated at "3 feet" btw,
forged/faked the Ballistics tests on both Oz's
MC as well as his pistol,
*planted* his wedding ring and $170 cash on
Marina's drawer,
faked the Itek tests on the bullet fragments,
*planted* the 3 cartridges, that all 3 of the
6F guys were ( gULp ) *lying*,
all 4 Tippit witnesses were lying or mistaken,
etc, etc,..
All these "lying and *planted* ideas were
snuffed out 4 decades ago..
Ric thou art both stubborn, slothful, and
sTeWpiT.
Ric you've had yet another shitty day and your
website designer says you never paid the $1000
for your JFK website set-up... Which has **NO**
active posters presently Ricland.
None.
Zip.
0.
You are the Ring Master of an empty $1000 shell
son.
You may go now Ric.. You've had yet another
truly shitty day son.. We'll call you when the
Three Stooges come on tonight..
MR ;~D
1623Apr2907
On Apr 29, 3:39 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
WHO is ed-in-a-cage?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/ed_cage_page.htm
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Ru2dnd6MSqYHn6jb...@comcast.com...
tomnln
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1177882078.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. Sawyer admitted his mistake and Craig was a liar. The photo of
the rifle in place shows a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.
> ricland
>
>
David Von Pein
Which is a question that was easily answered by the various
authorities in 1963. And yet Ric still is in doubt. ~yawn~
Oswald writes up the order blank for the MC rifle. He wires the
payment for the rifle (in his own hand). The rifle is sent to a P.O.
box where only Marina, Lee, and the fictional "A.J. Hidell" are
allowed to receive mail. The rifle is then picked up by someone in
late March 1963 at P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, USA. And Marina was
not the person who retrieved that package.
Per Ricland, apparently one of the many "Hidell/Oswald" look-alikes
must have picked up the rifle package that Klein's sent out on March
20, 1963.
Better to believe in the EXTRAordinary, rather than anything
ordinary...right Ric?
>>> "Then there's the question of it not being able to fit in the bag he brought to work." <<<
Then explain how an EMPTY 38-inch bag (big enough for Rifle C2766) got
to be where it was found in the SN (and written on by J.C. Day of the
DPD) on 11/22/63?
And explain why that bag had two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it?
One being a RIGHT PALMPRINT that matches (to a tee) the way Wes
Frazier said Oswald carried a bag into the building in his "cupped"
right hand that day.
>>> "Then the two officers who thought the weapon they found was a Mauser." <<<
Fully explained. But you'd never know....because you never bother to
look up anything before making a fool out of yourself, Professor
English.
Voila....
VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Boone, did the FBI ever show you a rifle which
they said was the rifle found on the sixth floor?"
EUGENE BOONE (Dallas County Deputy Sheriff who discovered a rifle in
the TSBD on 11/22/63) -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"
MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dallas Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman offered up the following
comments for the CBS cameras in 1967 re. the initial "Mauser"
identification:
SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"
WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8138b3000b1e18f3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42faee01d94a58d5
>>> "Then the officer who later said the weapon had "Mauser" inscribed on the barrel." <<<
Roger Craig. The same guy who said he saw Lee Oswald get into that
Rambler at 12:40. ....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
>>> "Then the useless scope." <<<
Nobody knows the EXACT condition of Oswald's 4x scope at the precise
time he shot JFK on Nov. 22. It's quite possible the scope was damaged
when Oswald (in a hurry no doubt) dropped it behind those boxes in the
TSBD.
Plus: Oswald might not have even used the scope at all. He could have
sighted through the iron sights at the end of the rifle's barrel. Who
knows?! Nobody does....because Oswald wasn't kind enough to tell us
which firing method he employed on Nov. 22. But Oswald's many LIES re.
the rifle are enough BY THEMSELVES to hang him. ....
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; 1986
>>> "Then the fact that FBI Olympic class marksmen could not duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting." <<<
Many people have duplicated (or EXCEEDED) Oswald's Nov. 22nd shooting
performance....and in less than 6 seconds!
But it's better for the conspiracy-loving kooks if they just pretend
that the various people who have duplicated Oswald's feat don't even
exist.
Main point here being: Even if SOME gunmen couldn't do it .... many
others COULD do it. Proving: IT CAN BE DONE. Period.
>>> "Then the testimony that more than three shots were fired." <<<
Which is testimony that includes a whopping 8.7% of the witnesses.
IOW: 91.3% of the polled witnesses were of the opinion that no more
than three shots were fired.
Even though earwitness testimony is always problematic and usually
sketchy, stats like those are difficult to brush aside, IMO. Esp. when
HUNDREDS of witnesses make up the poll numbers (and not just 3 or 4
witnesses):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
>>> "Then the 40-odd people who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll." <<<
With 35 of those 40 also thinking (wrongly, for sure) that ALL of the
shots they heard came from the Knoll area. What do you do with that
kind of "discrepancy within a discrepancy"?
Since we KNOW that SOME shots came from the Texas School Book
Depository, how can we trust those witnesses' claims when they said
that ALL of the shots came from a non-TSBD location?
Any ideas, Prof.?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "Then the witnesses who saw men behind the picket fence." <<<
But saw no one SHOOTING from behind the picket fence.
And if you want to prop up Ed Hoffman here, better re-think that for a
moment....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm
>>> "Then Connally's "delayed reaction" to the first bullet to hit JFK." <<<
There was no delay. Unless ONE Z-Film frame is considered a
"delay"....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>>> "Then the Zapruda [sic; geez] film showing JFK reeling backwards from the last shot." <<<
But only after his head initially goes FORWARD.
Did you even know about the forward movement of the head from Z312 to
Z313, Ric-ster? I'm doubting it. But watching the following excellent
super-slo-mo Z-Film clip (linked below) is all the education you
really need re. the JFK head shot.
The President's head moves discernibly FORWARD at the MOMENT OF
IMPACT. And ALL of the head debris goes FORWARD as well, without a
hint of even any REDNESS on the BACK of John Kennedy's head.
Truly remarkable, huh, if a big hole has just been torn in the BACK of
his cranium (which, of course, should have been gushing blood, like
the right-frontal wound is so obviously doing here)? ....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Another very good Z-Film Internet source is the following "stabilized"
version (which is on a continuous back-&-forth loop). ....
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
>>> "Then Connally's testimony that he's convinced the bullet that hit him was different from the bullet that hit JFK." <<<
I suggest you read the following article (Mr. Connally wasn't so
"convinced" after all, it would appear)....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>>> "Then Officer Baker and Trully [sic] finding Oswald in the cafeteria sipping a Coke less than 90 seconds after the shooting." <<<
A double-witness misstatement of fact there. Neither Baker nor Truly
said they saw Oswald with a Coke when they saw him in the lunchroom
after the shooting. That's pure myth, created by CTers.
And when Tom-Kook offers up this document....
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg
....in an attempt to say that Baker "lied", just take a close look at
the writing on that document. It's NOT BAKER'S. It's the FBI agent's.
Baker merely CORRECTED the agent's misstatement within the
document...and Baker initialed it (in obviously-different handwriting
from the bulk of the document).
THE OSWALD "TIMELINE" -- JUST PERFECT FOR A GUILTY ASSASSIN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
EVERY LAST THING LEE OSWALD DID INDICATES A "GUILTY" MAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
>>> "Discrepancies mean you stop, not go forward." <<<
LOL. This is fabulous logic.
I guess everybody (including all CTers) should just pack it up then.
The case is unsolvable due to some "discrepancies".
God help the legal system if Ric ever sits on a jury.
To Ricland's way of thinking, if a man is caught red-handed killing
his wife with a knife, and the wife's left ear has been cut off, and
the aforementioned man was caught with a bloody knife in his hand and
he had the woman's left ear in his pocket.....that man's guilt would
be in serious doubt (per The Ric-ster) because a neighbor came forth
to say that another person was the probable killer (or maybe that the
victim's cat had pulled a knife and killed its owner).
The above analogy is not really too far afield from precisely what
CTers face daily with respect to Oswald's obvious guilt in the J.D.
Tippit murder.
Oswald was literally caught with the SMOKING GUN on him (i.e., the gun
in Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the theater was
scientifically and positively linked to the four bullet shells strewn
on the Davis lawn near the Tippit murder scene).
Plus there's the fact that multiple witnesses watched as Oswald
HIMSELF dumped those shells onto the Davis property after witnesses
saw Oswald HIMSELF shoot Officer Tippit.
HOW MUCH MORE STUFF DO YOU NEED? HOW MUCH??
I'm only asking. ;)
Ben Holmes
*ALL* of Eddies "35 Reasons" have been challenged. Eddie was unable to reply to
quite a number of them. I reposted all rebuttals that he refused to respond to.
Eddy is a troll. Killfiled. Ditto with Ricland.
>> Is that your point, Ed?
>>
>>>
>>> ****************************
>>> I have an evidence *pattern*
>>> You don't.
>>> And that's the DIFFERENCE.
>>> ****************************
>>
>>
>> Fine, then let's go through your 35 points one by one, shall we?
>>
>> Two police offices first described the weapon they found as a Mauser.
>> One of these officers said "Mauser" was written on the gun barrel.
>>
>> That rebuts your point #6, right, Ed?
>>
>
>Nonsense. Sawyer admitted his mistake and Craig was a liar. The photo of
>the rifle in place shows a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.
Spoken like a true LNT'er.
>> ricland
>>
>>
tomnln
How do you account for FOUR (4) DPD officers stating it was a Mauser
in the presence of Capt. Fritz/Lt. Day?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:squdnTXX6tbHrajb...@comcast.com...
tomnln
Where can I find official citation that ANYONE other than Oswald was
authorized
to receive mail at that P O Box?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177893808.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Lee Oswald himself pretty much told us that information (via Harry
Holmes' testimony).....
"Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir. Maybe my wife, but I
couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is
possible she could have." -- LHO; Via H. Holmes' notes
Now, yes, a grain of salt should be taken re. the comments of the
murderer himself....esp. since we know Oswald was a veritable lying
machine from Nov. 22-24, 1963 -- but I fail to see why he'd feel the
need to lie about an innocuous thing like Marina getting mail at a PO
Box that we know Lee used.
And I think it's very reasonable to assume that "A.J. Hidell" was an
authorized recipient of mail at Box #2915 too....because why would
Oswald send away for stuff in that name and then fail to authorize
"Hidell" as a recipient of items at that box? That would be silly.
Addendum......
BTW, lots of additional LHO lies can be gleaned from Harry D. Holmes'
WC testimony. Does an innocent patsy really need to lie this much? If
so, why?.....
HARRY HOLMES -- "Do you own a rifle?" ... {Oswald answered:}
"Absolutely not. How would I afford a rifle. I make $1.25 an hour. I
can't hardly feed myself." ... "What about this picture of you holding
this rifle?" ... "Well, I don't know what you are talking about." ...
"Well, who is A.J. Hidell?" I asked him. And he said, "I don't know
any such person." I showed him the box rental application for the post
office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows
as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina
Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?" And I said
also it says "A.J. Hidell." ... "Well, I don't know anything about
that." ... "Well, did you order a gun in that name to come {to PO Box
2915 in Dallas}?" ... "No, absolutely not."
tomnln
2nd hand
Gimme something SOLID.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177916584.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "David; Where can I find official citation that ANYONE other than
>>>> Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that P O Box?" <<<
>
> Lee Oswald himself pretty much told us that (via Harry Holmes'
> testimony).....
>
> "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but
> I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is
> possible she could have." -- LHO; Via H. Holmes' notes
>
> Now, yes, a grain of salt should be taken re. the comments of the
> murderer himself....esp. since we know Oswald was a lying machine from
> Nov. 22-24, 1963 -- but I fail to see why he'd feel the need to lie
> about an innocuous thing like Marina getting mail at a PO Box that we
> know Lee used.
>
> And I think it's very reasonable to assume that "A.J. Hidell" was an
> authorized recipient of mail at BOx 2915 too....because why would
> Oswald send away for stuff in that name and then fail to authorize
> "Hidell" as a recipicent of items at that box? That would be silly.
>
> Addendum......
>
> BTW, lots of additional LHO lies can gleaned from Harry D. Holmes' WC
> testimony. Does an innocent patsy really need to lie this much? If so,
> why?.....
>
> HARRY HOLMES -- "Do you own a rifle?" ... {Oswald answered:}
> "Absolutely not. How would I afford a rifle. I make $1.25 an hour. I
> can't hardly feed myself." ... "What about this picture of you holding
> this rifle?" ... "Well, I don't know what you are talking about." ...
> He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir. Maybe my
> wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but
> it is possible she could have." ... "Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I
> asked him. And he said, "I don't know any such person." I showed him
> the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and
> I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive,
> being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well,
> that is my wife, so what?" And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell." ...
lazu...@webtv.net
authorization, signed by LHO, to receive mail for an A. Hidell.
Of course, we do know that, contrary to Postal Regulations, no record of
LHO's receipt of the rifle was ever kept, so there's no proof he even
received the rifle.
---Old Laz
David Von Pein
receive mail" list at Box 2915, for Pete sake.
Why would Oswald have mail shipped to 2915 under a name he knew was
UNauthorized to receive it?
Once more, CT-Kooks fail to apply any logic to a situation.
Surprise.
Todd W. Vaughan
> ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > Try to think *substance* Ric.. Surely you
> > understand that.. Let's see:
>
> > ****************************
> > Here's mine:
> > 35 REASONS OSWALD DID IT by Ed Cage
> > 1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
>
> -----> snip! <-----
>
> Earth calling Ed Cage ... Earth calling Ed Cage ... Earth call...
>
> I don't know what cave you've been living in for the last 45 years, Ed,
> but each item in your list has been challenged and throughly rebutted.
> Legions of books have addressed each one and in each case the item had
> little or no foundation.
>
> The three spent cartridges is a good starting point. It would have taken
> Oswald less than a second to scoop them up. Instead he leaves them there
> and goes to the cafeteria to have a Coke.
What a classic example of one-dimensional thinking.
In order for LHO to have picked up the spent shells he would have had
to have first gotten into a position where he could actually have done
so. Given the layout of the snipers nest, with the window to the south
and the wall of boxes to the north, the spent shells could only be
accessed from the east or the west. Approaching the spent shells from
the east would require him to squeeze between the gun-rest boxes and
the wall boxes. Approaching the spent shells from the west would
require LHO to exit the snipers nest, move around the outside of the
nest to it's west side, and then squeeze through the boxes there.
The use of either of these routes would take more than your piss-
poorly thought out "less than a second" (as if mortal man in the
world, even with immediate, unobstructed access, could have picked up
the three scattered spent shells in your laughable "less than a
second", LMFAO). Further, once in a position where the spent shells
could be picked up, LHO would be standing in front of the windows,
exposed to everyone below.
Is your opinion of LHO"s intelligence really this low?
>He also supposedly leaves his
> rifle there with his prints on it instead of putting it back in the bag
> and going downstairs.
Are you suggesting he put the rifle into the paper bag and then carry
the bag with the rifle in it downstairs?
Good Lord, man, are you really this stupid?
I guess the only questions left to ask is, does he let the muzzle end
or the butt end stick out of the open end of the bag as he's carrying
it downstairs past his co-workers and the police, or does he spend
5-10 more minutes on the 6th floor and in the snipers nest taking it
apart before he waltz's downstairs past his co-workers and the police
carrying a large paper bag after shots were just fired.
You might think this plan would go over well in a bad Three Stooges
short, but not in real life. You should be embarrassed you even
thought of it, let alone committed it to writing.
>
> And this doesn't ring any bells with you, it doesn't scream out, "frame
> job!"
>
> And as to the fingerprints they're a myth. His prints were not found on
> the rifle, provide the cite if you challenge this.
Ah, you really don't know the case, do you.
tomnln
How do you feel about the authorities Withholding, Altering & Destroying
Evidence?
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177960522....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Todd Vaughn once again exposes his ignorance of the FACTS. A person
could NOT have gotten into the SN (Smoker's Nook) from the WEST end.
The west end was sealed by the boxes that formed the Goof off hide-
away. Detective Studebaker drew a map of the lay-out of the sixth
floor and it shows the back wall of the Smoker's Nook tapered from
North to South which made the opening behind the boxes a TRIANGLE.
Studebaker's map is shown on page 146 of 1st Day Evidence. It's just
this kind of ignorance of detail that keeps the LNer's looking like
fools.
Walt
> > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> HERESAY:
>
> 2nd hand
>
> Gimme something SOLID.
Save that dirty talk for those I-80 truckers, "Gummy Bear" (Tom`s
CB handle).
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1177963803.6...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
No wonder you're an Atheist.
Your first loyalty is to Lying Felons.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1177965323.1...@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt,
Amateur analysis, as always.
I'm well aware of the map, having seen Livingstone and Savage's copy
before they published their book, and having seen the original in the
Dallas Municipal Archives. It's not entirely accurate in the area of
the back wall of the snipers nest.
The Alyea film of the snipers nest, as well as the crime scene photos,
show an area on the west side of the nest that someone could squeeze
through.
Moreover, one sequence of the Alyea film shows DPD Detectives (Sims
and Boyd I believe) in the west end of the snipers nest examining it,
having entered from the west side. I'm going to e-mail you a still
frame of this.
Besides, it matters not for the essence of my post, which I see you
ignored.
Todd
> > > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
aeffects
Wasn't there some debate as to the way evidence initially appeared in
the SN? Arrangement (or placement) of bullet casings come to mind, for
that matter acquisition of ALL spent,unspent rounds? The place/
position of the rifle, when found? Why was a 6.5 cartridge in some
DPoliceman's pocket for a few days? Couple that with other DPD
screwups, allowing the murder of LHO to happen while in their custody
for instance, is it a stretch to think that a few book boxes were
moved around in the TSBD? H A R D L Y!
> > > > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
Roger Craig made some claims in his manuscript which are refuted by
the testimony of others and crime scene photos, and tare dulled by he
fact that he never made the claims in 1963/4 when he had the chance.
Alyea makes some modern day claims/rememberences that are clearly
refuted by his own words in an interview he did in December of 1963
(as well as the testimony of others and the crime scene photos).
>The place/
> position of the rifle, when found?
None of any real substance. The rifle was photographed in place by the
DPD and filmed being removed from that place by Alyea.
>Why was a 6.5 cartridge in some
> DPoliceman's pocket for a few days? >
It wasn't. Fritz turned 2 shells over to the FBI. He kept one in his
desk while they tried to track down if it had been sold from a local
gun shop.
You really need to get up to speed, turtle.
>Couple that with other DPD
> screwups, allowing the murder of LHO to happen while in their custody
> for instance, is it a stretch to think that a few book boxes were
> moved around in the TSBD? H A R D L Y!
Speculate all you want.
Next you, Cyril Wecht, and Jim Marrs will claim aliens were breeding
hollywood supermodels in the snipers nest.
> > > > > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequotedtext -
aeffects
damn near everything is refuted in this case, Dealey Plaza confines
notwithstanding
> Alyea makes some modern day claims/rememberences that are clearly
> refuted by his own words in an interview he did in December of 1963
> (as well as the testimony of others and the crime scene photos).
>
> >The place/
> > position of the rifle, when found?
>
> None of any real substance. The rifle was photographed in place by the
> DPD and filmed being removed from that place by Alyea.
oh really? was the rifle removed once, replaced, removed a second time
for the camera[s]?
Is there anything on-record/in dispute as being moved/removed in the
SN on Nov 22nd 1963 before or after cameras arrived?
> >Why was a 6.5 cartridge in some
> > DPoliceman's pocket for a few days? >
>
> It wasn't. Fritz turned 2 shells over to the FBI. He kept one in his
> desk while they tried to track down if it had been sold from a local
> gun shop.
sure it wasn't his pocket?
> You really need to get up to speed, turtle.
not to worry, hare.... I have a way of being there when its time to
cross the finish line, well ahead of the hare.... You're doing fine,
though.
> >Couple that with other DPD
> > screwups, allowing the murder of LHO to happen while in their custody
> > for instance, is it a stretch to think that a few book boxes were
> > moved around in the TSBD? H A R D L Y!
>
> Speculate all you want.
of course its speculation, and the official "evidence-testimony" is
suspect, simple as that....
>
> Next you, Cyril Wecht, and Jim Marrs will claim aliens were breeding
> hollywood supermodels in the snipers nest.
>
and you were dong so well, can't help yourself can you...
p.s. even super-models fall on their 'collective' asses
occasionally...
Todd W. Vaughan
Not that I know.
> Is there anything on-record/in dispute as being moved/removed in the
> SN on Nov 22nd 1963 before or after cameras arrived?
You tell me, for a change.
>
> > >Why was a 6.5 cartridge in some
> > > DPoliceman's pocket for a few days? >
>
> > It wasn't. Fritz turned 2 shells over to the FBI. He kept one in his
> > desk while they tried to track down if it had been sold from a local
> > gun shop.
>
> sure it wasn't his pocket?
I know it was in his desk at one time. Was it ever in his pocket?. I
don't know.
>
> > You really need to get up to speed, turtle.
>
> not to worry, hare.... I have a way of being there when its time to
> cross the finish line, well ahead of the hare.... You're doing fine,
> though.
"Hare"...nice...I like that.
I'll always do fine.
You, getting ahead of me on the facts of the case?
RRIIGGHHTT.
I'm not worried at all.
>
> > >Couple that with other DPD
> > > screwups, allowing the murder of LHO to happen while in their custody
> > > for instance, is it a stretch to think that a few book boxes were
> > > moved around in the TSBD? H A R D L Y!
>
> > Speculate all you want.
>
> of course its speculation, and the official "evidence-testimony" is
> suspect, simple as that....
More speculation.
>
>
>
> > Next you, Cyril Wecht, and Jim Marrs will claim aliens were breeding
> > hollywood supermodels in the snipers nest.
>
> and you were dong so well, can't help yourself can you...
> p.s. even super-models fall on their 'collective' asses
> occasionally...
Question: If a super model falls on her ass in the snipers nest, does
Harold Norman, on the 5th floor below, hear it?
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Walt
For the record.....There are both police and civilian photos and films
of the rifle in situ, being removed from the cavern of boxes, and
dusted for prints after the removal. These photos are genuine
records of the events on the sixth floor at about 1:30pm 11 /22/ 63
Walt
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
we know for a FACT nothing on the 6th floor was moved/removed BEFORE
cameras (press/police) arrived on the 6th floor?
Alyea's film camera type/size, if you know? SOF or no sound?
> ...
>
> read more ยป
aeffects
Norman has to hear, nothing.... depending on how close to the window
sill the model falls. That view, may well be worth Norman's price of
admission....
> ...
>
> read more ยป
Todd W. Vaughan
Of course things on the 6th floor were moved, BEFORE the press and
police arrived.
LHO moved the rifle, right?
>
> Alyea's film camera type/size, if you know? SOF or no sound?
16 MM BW, no sound. Trask would have more details.
aeffects
good question, perhaps we can get to that once we've determined
(beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) Oswald even owned a MC rifle
> ...
>
> read more ยป
David Von Pein
Why do CT-Kooks still doubt this fact? Why? (Silly question, I
know...it's because of your built-in kook gene; but I thought I'd ask
anyway.)
Oswald positively ORDERED the gun....
Oswald positively PAID FOR the gun....
Oswald positively was PHOTOGRAPHED with the gun (just days after
receiving it)....
Oswald's PRINT was positively on the gun on 11/22.
Marina said that Lee had a gun (on Neely St. and in the Paine garage).
Does a house need to fall on you? Or would it make any difference at
all? Would you still insist on defending the indefensible?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Perhaps we can get to that once we've determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, of course) Oswald even owned a MC rifle." <<<
>
> Why do CT-Kooks still doubt this fact? Why? (Silly question, I
> know...it's because of your built-in kook gene; but I thought I'd ask
> anyway.)
>
> Oswald positively ORDERED the gun....
> Oswald positively PAID FOR the gun....
> Oswald positively was PHOTOGRAPHED with the gun (just days after
> receiving it)....
> Oswald's PRINT was positively on the gun on 11/22.
> Marina said that Lee had a gun (on Neely St. and in the Paine garage).
>
So what?
> Does a house need to fall on you? Or would it make any difference at
> all? Would you still insist on defending the indefensible?
>
All of that does not prove that he pulled the trigger on 11/22/63.
Anthony Marsh
True that Roger Craig simply lied to support his fellow cops. But you
can't cite how long it took him to speak up. Various witnesses have come
forth many years later because they were afraid. And he was killed,
wasn't he?
> Alyea makes some modern day claims/rememberences that are clearly
> refuted by his own words in an interview he did in December of 1963
> (as well as the testimony of others and the crime scene photos).
>
>
But could some be true?
David Von Pein
So what?? Are you nuts?
It all goes to answering the silly question posed by Healy -- DID LHO
OWN THE MC RIFLE?
It wasn't intended to answer the specific question of whether LHO
pulled the trigger. Of course, several other factors indicate he DID
do just that, naturally.
And just garden-variety CS&L would point the finger of probable guilt
at the OWNER OF THE MURDER WEAPON...and when coupled with all the
OTHER stuff besides...Oswald is as guilty as he could possibly be.
"Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." --
VINCE BUGLIOSI; From "Reclaiming History" (2007)
tomnln
The rifle found in the TSBD was described as a Mauser by FOUR (4) DPD
officers
"in the presence of Capt. Fritz and, Lt Day".
STOP supporting Felons.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LKGdnZF8Q5txIqrb...@comcast.com...